JUDGMENT : Heard the arguments of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the appellants/claimants and Sri Rajasekhar, learned counsel representing on behalf of Sri Solomon Raju Manchala, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC. 2. This appeal directed by the appellants/claimants challenging the Order and Decree dated 08.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2009 passed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru (hereinafter referred to ‘Tribunal’). 3. Parties are referred to as they were arrayed in the proceedings before the learned Tribunal, for the sake of convenience. 4. The case of the claimants is that on 09.11.2007 one Bhupati Nageswara Rao (hereinafter referred to as ‘deceased’) and another person were proceedings from Mutyalammapadu towards cement factory on a scooter bearing registration No16 N 9208; when they reached near Anjaneya Swamy Temple on G.S.Raju road around 5.40 PM, a bus bearing registration No.AP10 Z 9872 (hereinafter referred to as ‘offending vehicle’) belongs to APSRTC, came in opposite direction, hit the scooter; the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries and succumbed to injuries in Government Hospital, Vijayawada; a case in Crime No.566 of 2007 was registered for the offence punishable under Sections 304-A and 337 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for brevity ‘IPC’). 5. The deceased was working as lorry driver and also doing commission business in pulses and earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. 6. The respondent No.3/APSRTC filed counter contending that on 09.11.2007 the 1st respondent stopped the bus at the bus top of cement factory to board the passengers and at that time the deceased with a pillion-rider came from wrong side in opposite direction in a drunken state and on suddenly found the bus in front of his scooter, applied sudden brakes and fell down from the scooter; the deceased himself drove the scooter in a rash and negligent manner; as there is no negligence on the part of driver of the bus, the respondent No.3 is also not vicariously liable to pay any compensation to the petitioners; the driver, owner and insurer of the scooter on which the deceased was travelling on the date of accident are also proper and necessary parties to the petition. 7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. 7. The learned Tribunal, basing on the rival contentions, framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether the accident dated 09.11.2007 occurred due to the rash or negligent driving of APSRTC bus bearing No.AP10 Z 9872 by the 1st respondent? 2. Whether the accident occurred due to negligence of rider of scooter bearing No.AP16 N 9208? 3. Whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties i.e., owner and insurer of scooter? 4. Whether the petitioners are entitled for compensation and if so, for what amount and from which of the respondents? 5. To what relief? 8. During enquiry, three witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.3 and Ex.A.1 to Ex.A.6 are marked on behalf of the claimants and on behalf of the respondents the driver of the offending vehicle was examined as R.W.1. 9. The learned Tribunal, on consideration of the evidence placed before it on issue Nos.1 and 2 held that the accident was occurred on account of negligence of the driver of the offending vehicle. The learned Tribunal, on issue No.3, held that claimant is entitled to sue all or any of the negligent person and it is no concerned of his whether there is any duty of contribution or indemnify as between them and he has right to recover full amount of damages from any one of the joint tort feasor. 10. Further, the learned Tribunal, on issue No.4, on failure to produce any evidence, consider the deceased as skilled worker and fixed the income at Rs.3,000/- per month and basing on the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma and another Vs. Delhi Road Transport Corporation and others, 2009 ACJ 1298 considered the age of the deceased in the category of ’31-35’ years and applied ‘16’ multiplier, and assessed loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/- besides awarding Rs.15,000/- towards loss of consortium and Rs.5,000/- each towards loss of estate and funeral expenses and in all, the Tribunal made entitled the claimants to a sum of Rs.4,57,000/-, but the Tribunal having considered that there was contributory negligence on the part of the deceased, deducted 25% of the amount from Rs.4,57,000/- and awarded a sum of Rs.3,42,750/-with interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of deposit. 11. 11. The contention of Sri B.V.Krishna Reddy, learned counsel for the claimants is that the income fixed by Tribunal at Rs.3,000/- per month is at lower side and the claimants filed Ex.A.6 establishing that he was holding License to drive heavy goods vehicle and therefore, the income of the deceased would be more than Rs.3,000/- at the relevant point in time. He would further submits that the Tribunal did not award future prospects as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Pranay Sethi and others, (2017) 16 SCC 680 on the fixed income. He would also submits that the Tribunal did not award amount under the conventional heads as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 . 12. Learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC would submit that there is no income proof placed by the claimants before the Tribunal, except the oral statement of the wife and others and therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the income fixed by the Tribunal and he would further submits that the learned Tribunal, basing on the evidence placed before it, awarded just compensation and there are no grounds to interfere with the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. 13. Considering the above rival contentions, the points that would arise for consideration in this appeal are as under: 1. Whether the compensation awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari, Eluru, in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2009 vide Order and Decree dated 08.06.2012 is a just compensation in the circumstances of the case and does it warrants interference of this Court? 2. To what relief? 14. POINT NO.1: It is an admitted fact that the accident was occurred in the year 2007. The Tribunal, basing on the evidence placed before it, held that the accident was occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the APSRTC bus belonging to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 and that, the deceased sustained injuries in the accident and he succumbed to the said injuries. The respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal. The respondent Nos.2 and 3/APSRTC did not challenge the said finding of the Tribunal. Therefore, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal on the aspect that the accident was occurred due to negligence of the driver of APSRTC bus and the deceased sustained injuries and succumbed to injuries. 15. While coming to the assessment of compensation, the claimants who are the wife, two daughters and mother of the deceased would contend that the deceased was working as lorry driver at the time of accident and he was holding license to drive heavy goods vehicles under Ex.A.6 and therefore, he was earning a sum of Rs.10,000/- per month. The Tribunal, considering the evidence of P.W.1, wife of the deceased and P.W.2/Assistant Labour Officer, Eluru, who deposed about the Minimum Wages Act and minimum wages to be given to a lorry driver at the relevant point in time and also considering Ex.A.6/Driving License placed before it, treated him as a skilled worker and considering the same, fixed the notional income of the deceased at Rs.3,000/- per month as there was no other evidence placed on record establishing that the deceased was working as a lorry driver at the relevant point in time though he was holding a license to drive heavy goods vehicle. In the said circumstances, the Tribunal treated the deceased as skilled worker and fixed the monthly income at Rs.3,000/- per month, not treating him as lorry driver as no evidence was placed to that effect, this Court is of the considered opinion that on facts, there are no grounds to interfere with the finding of the learned Tribunal. 16. The learned Tribunal considered the age of the deceased at ’35 years’ basing on the evidence of P.W.1 and Ex.A.2 and placed it in age group of ‘31-35 years’ and applied multiplier ‘16’. The Tribunal deducted 1/4th of the income towards personal expenses of the deceased as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Sarla Verma case (supra) as there are four (04) dependants in the case and the Tribunal arrived the loss of dependency at Rs.4,32,000/-. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal in respect of loss of dependency. 17. However, it is an admitted fact that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of future earnings. In that view of the matter, there are no grounds to interfere with the said finding of the Tribunal in respect of loss of dependency. 17. However, it is an admitted fact that the Tribunal did not award any amount towards loss of future earnings. Considering him as self-employed/fixed salaried person as he was treated as skilled worker as job, salary was taken as Rs.3,000/- per month. In view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra), considering the age of the deceased as ‘35 years’ which is below 40 years, 40% of the income can be awarded towards future prospects of the deceased. Therefore, the amount that would come towards future prospects is Rs.1,72,800/-. 18. Admittedly, the 1st claimant is wife, 2nd and 3rd claimants are children of the deceased, who are minors at the time of accident. Therefore, in view of the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Magma General Insurance Company Limited vs. Nanu Ram @ Chuhru Ram and others, (2018) 18 SCC 130 they are entitled to ‘spousal and filial consortium’ at Rs.40,000/- each, which would come to Rs.1,20,000/-instead of Rs.15,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 19. The claimants are entitled to Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Funeral Expenses’ and Rs.15,000/- towards ‘Loss of Estate’ as per the Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Pranay Sethi case (supra) instead of Rs.5,000/- each as awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore, the claimants are entitled to a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in all under the conventional heads instead of Rs.20,000/- awarded by the Tribunal. 20. Therefore, the claimants, in all are entitled to a sum of Rs.4,32,000 + Rs.1,72,800 + Rs.1,20,000 + Rs.15,000 + Rs.15,000 = Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs fifty four thousand and eight hundred only) towards just compensation under Section 166 of the Act under the following heads discussed supra, instead of Rs.4,57,000/-as awarded by the Tribunal: Sl. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 4,32,000-00 2. Loss of future prospects 1,72,800-00 3. Loss of Consortium 1,20,000-00 4. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL: 7,54,800-00 21. The claim petition was filed for Rs.7,00,000/- only. Indeed, the amount entitled by the claimants towards just compensation is Rs.7,54,800/-. No. Description of the head Amount awarded in Rs. 1. Loss of dependency 4,32,000-00 2. Loss of future prospects 1,72,800-00 3. Loss of Consortium 1,20,000-00 4. Loss of Estate 15,000-00 5. Funeral Expenses 15,000-00 TOTAL: 7,54,800-00 21. The claim petition was filed for Rs.7,00,000/- only. Indeed, the amount entitled by the claimants towards just compensation is Rs.7,54,800/-. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mona Baghel and others vs. Sajjan Singh Yadav and others, (2019) 15 SCC 260 held that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. The law is well-settled that in the matter of compensation, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded despite the claimants having sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at a lesser value. Therefore, though the claimant sought for a lesser amount and the claim petition being valued at lesser value for Rs.7,00,000/-, the amount actually due and payable is to be awarded is Rs.7,54,800/-. 22. The learned Tribunal awarded interest at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of deposit. This Court do not find any ground to interfere with the rate of interest awarded by the learned Tribunal at 7.5% per annum from the date of petition, till the date of realisation, in view of the Hon’ble Apex Court judgement in the case of National Insurance Company Limited vs. Mannat Johal, 2019 ACJ 1849 (SC). 23. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the appeal is liable to be ‘allowed’, by setting-aside the Order and Decree passed by the learned Tribunal in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 24. POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2843 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Allowed’. 25. Accordingly, point No.1 is answered. 24. POINT NO.2: In the light of finding on point No.1, the appeal in M.A.C.M.A.No.2843 of 2012 is liable to be ‘Allowed’. 25. IN THE RESULT, the Appeal in is ‘Allowed’ by setting-aside the Order and Decree dated 08.06.2012 passed in M.V.O.P.No.659 of 2009 on the file of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-I Additional District Judge, West Godavari District at Eluru, holding that the appellants/ claimants are entitled to a compensation of Rs.7,54,800/- (Rupees seven lakhs, fifty four thousand and eight hundred only) with interest @ 7.5% per annum from the date of petition till the date of realisation, instead of Rs.4,57,000/-, as awarded by the learned Tribunal. 26. The 3rd respondent/APSRTC is directed to deposit the compensation amount within six (06) weeks from the date of the judgment, and in the event of the 3rd respondent/ APSRTC already deposited some amount, the said amount has to be excluded, and the balance amount shall be deposited within above said period from the date of Judgment. 27. On such deposit, claimant No.1/wife and claimant Nos.2 and 3/daughters of the deceased are entitled to an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- each and the claimant No.4/ mother of the deceased is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,54,800/-, and the appellants/claimants are permitted to withdraw their respective apportioned amounts along with accrued interest thereon. There shall be no order as to costs. 28. The appellants/claimants are directed to pay the deficit court fee before the learned Tribunal as per Rule 475(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989, within one month from the date of receipt of certified copy of Judgment. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.